update_sql_template

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It explains the intended content of execution_flow and example_case, but does not disclose whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, what happens if the template does not exist, required permissions, or response/error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the bullet points add only the field-specific guidance that is most likely to need explanation. No redundant or filler content is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, this description is severely incomplete. It covers only two fields in detail and leaves critical update semantics—partial vs. full replacement, validation, error cases, and permissions—entirely unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 14 parameters. It adds meaningful detail for only execution_flow and example_case, while the remaining 12 parameters (e.g., title, category, verified, placeholders) receive no semantic explanation beyond their schema names and defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('更新' / update) and a concrete resource ('已有模板的字段' / fields of existing templates), with examples of what can be updated. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get, search, list, delete, and save.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The text implies the tool is for existing templates via '已有模板', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus save_sql_template or when not to use it. There are no named alternatives or exclusion conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.